Lit Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

I wonder- does the Brass Star Destroyer's command tower match that of the Executor? It would be interesting to know.

Also- given that, based on a mile-long Star Destroyer, people calculated the length of the Falcon to be 53m rather than 35m (when attached to a command tower)- if we assume that the 35m is in fact the scale one is required to use since it's far more recent- then should the Imperial Star Destroyer length be scaled down as well?

 

Should be fairly easy to compare the actual shot from ESB with a comparative view from The Force Unleashed bts section, which had two of the movie models side by side (though the Executor model shot is still skewed towards one side and not a true sideview).

With regards to the similar command tower modules and adding up ISDs, we get once again, something closer to 17,6 km than either 13 or 19 km.
Using ILM's yardstick of the Executor being eleven times the original Star Destroyer, I wonder why LFL didn't just go for that if they were gonna upscale it in the first place? Wouldn't even have to acknowledge fan analysis.

 

My memory on this is hazy, but is the concept of KDY command towers all being the same size from the EU or G-canon? Cause if it is from the former, the tower doesn't matter.

Any Photoshop/art wizards interested in putting together a scale pic that shows a 13km SSD, a 1.6km ISD, a 1.2km Mon Cal cruiser and some other vessels so that we can see what it looks like? I am a visual person.

--Adm. Nick

 

I know it was stated in ITWOT that the Executor's tower was a modular build standard on many KDY designs. Saxton noted it on his site beforehand. I guess taking a cue from the From SW to Indy book. Wonder if there's an ILM sketch with this specification on it?

 

I remember the From SW to Indy book having a very small listed size for the "full-sized Falcon" from ESB- only 60-odd ft or so.
Even with "bigger on the inside" to force the size up, I can't see it being 53m long, somehow.
Makes sense that they stopped boosting the size when they got to 35m (in the Millennium Falcon Owners Workshop Manual).

It also had a matte painting of the DS1 with a huge crater on the equator- like the technical readout- suggesting it may have been changed quite late in the design process).

 

I also seem to recall some sketches from the PT movies that had completely different sizes of the Separatist ships than what was used in the ICS.

Then again, the ICS didn't incorporate any updated stats for the latest version, for whatever reason.

 

Probably they couldn't be bothered- Complete Vehicles didn't update the Falcon's length either.

 

Right - that was one of them.

Makes you wonder if there are any surprises in the Death Star guide coming up....

 

I saw a SW: The Blueprints book in the bookshop the other day- over an inch thick, A3 size- was published fairly recently this year.

Has anyone read it- and was there anything in it that was surprising?

 

Preview of the Death Star Manual is up:

Here or here

First pic that I know of for the Eye of Palpatine, some Tarkin info, and Torpedo Spheres. Pretty awesome.

Also a possible change:

Spoiler

Took a quick glance and it looks like the Death Star got smaller again at 120 km in diameter, pretty lame

 

And now the same author wants to use the 13+ km measurement for an Executor book. Meh. At least we can get some new class illustrations out of it. Mandators, anyone?

 

Uh Eye of Palpatine and the Tarkin expanded on and the Death Star got back it's correct size. Lets hope they also make #2 twice as big as that one, like it was meant to be.

 

By correct, you mean ignoring ILM again: "The Deathstar, I think, will be a lot more interesting than the one in the first Star Wars — mainly because it is under construction ... Plus, it will be MUCH bigger. In Star Wars, it was really difficult to establish the scale. It was supposed to be miles in diameter, but with a full sphere it was hard to tell. The new one is supposed to be more like five hundred miles in diameter, but since we're not dealing with a sphere all the time, we'll be able to establish landmarks and get a better sense of scale." - Richard Edlund, CINEFEX (July 1983).

And here's this doozy: "The scale on the models ranged from 1:8 on the life pod and Lifepod Bay to 1:16 for most of the space vehicles to an incredible 1:180,000 for the Death Star (making the full size Death Star 102+ miles in diameter)" - Grant McCune, Chief Model Maker, Bantha Tracks #6 (Autumn 1979).

 

Tickle us, do we not laugh? Prick us, do we not bleed? Wrong us, shall we not revenge?

 

Model was still less than twice as big as the DS1 model though.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_VI:_Return_of_the_Jedi_(novel)

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinefex

 

It's like you can't even read.

 

Fine, ignore what the people who made the movies say about their own work, minimalist.

 

And you feel free to keep ignoring the people that get licensed to write about these movies

 

Please be respectful of each other, gentlemen. Disagreement is one thing, but lets not resort to sniping or petty comments.

I mean, this place is like me online house, so don't make me Mod here. This is where I come to relax.

--Adm. Nick

 

You mean the movies ILM worked on and not those authors? That the FX makers bothered to care about scaling, like professionals, yet the maintainers of their legacy keep dragging their feet on the issue. You bet I'll ignore them and call them out on shoddy writing.

 

So what about the many places in the movies were the scaling clearly just does not work?

 

If they make mistakes, they make mistakes. No work is flawless, not even Stanley Kubrick on his most pedantic got everything in every shot 100 % correct.
Their intentions are clear from their own quotes.

 

Might be, but then the guy who they build all this stuff for, licensed someone else to tell us stuff about the universe and not what the model builder might have initially planned when they were building these things.